|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently the officer is to be disciplined.
The girl was drunk and running away, and she was running into traffic ... but I guess the officer was supposed to run INTO traffic after her?!
He stopped her, possibly saved her life, and saved himself ... but he's to be disciplined!
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...the officer would have received a commendation. The point here is that the officers' actions in both cases are thought of differently based on the sex of the person they have used force against. That is the fundamental problem with the situations: boys are valid targets for violence even when they are little more than toddlers (ie, 6 years old). Girls it seems are never targets for violence even if as you point out their behavior runs the risk of them injuring others. See the 2x-standard in action?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the officer may have indeed saved the girls life by preventing her from running into traffic. If he let her run into traffic, would he then have been held liable for any injuries because "she was forced to run into traffic by a persuing officer".
What is not mentioned in the article however, is what was a 12 yo girl doing drunk? playing hooky from school? These are symptoms of something more ominous and disturbing. I wager this girl will be pregnant by 15, but thats another rant.
No, the officer should be commended for saving the girls life. Perhpas this will put some perspective into the girl, and she won't be getting drunk and playing hooky anymore.
Michael
"Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
